For Religious Conservatives, the War Against Gay Rights is Already Lost

One of the more enjoyable aspects of the recent and rapid advance of gay rights over the past few years -- and the past few months in particular -- has been watching the Baghdad Bob-like insistence on the far-right that the battle against the Homosexual Menace can still be won. For those of you who might not remember, "Baghdad Bob" was a nickname given to Saddam Hussein's Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. He earned notoriety for being the worst propagandist anyone had ever seen, insisting that the defense of Iraq from the Dubya invasion was going great for Hussein -- at one point telling reporters there were no Americans in Baghdad while our tanks rolled around in the background.

The right's approach to the advance of gay rights and gay acceptance has been complete denial to a ludicrous degree. For people who talk about liberty and freedom a lot, they sure don't seem to have a lot of use for them.

At the head of all this stupid, you're generally going to find Michele Bachmann. Yesterday was no exception.

Raw Story: Appearing on CNN’s The Situation Room, and speaking before Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062 which would have effectively legalized discrimination based on religious grounds, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) explained to Wolf Blitzer that a veto would “eviscerate” freedom of speech.

Asked by host Blitzer what she thinks Governor Jan Brewer should do with the bill sitting on her desk, Bachmann replied that we need to have “tolerance” for people on both sides of the issue.

“I think what we need to do is respect both sides. We need to respect both opinions,” Bachmann replied. “And just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious belief.”

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Ironically, As Long As There Are Gay Republicans, The GOP Will Think It's OK To Bash Gays

The Republican Party just lost a voter. Or, at least, a member. In a post to his blog, GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia announces that while the "Proud" part still applies, he is no longer GOP.

Jimmy LaSalvia: Today, I joined the ranks of unaffiliated voters. I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.

The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP. The current leadership lacks the courage to stand up to it – I’m not sure they ever will.

I have worked hard to help to create an atmosphere on the right where conservatives can openly support gay Americans and even support same-sex marriage. In that effort, we have won, but there is more work to do to root out the anti-gay and other forms of bigotry in the party.

So I changed my voter registration today – “No Party.”

For those who need to catch up here, GOProud is an organization of LGBT Republicans who seem to exist solely to demonstrate that there are LGBT Republicans. It's an offshoot of the Log Cabin Republicans, a similar group that LaSalvia and fellow GOProud co-founder Christopher R. Barron left because it was "too centrist."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Rightwing Homophobes Going the Way of the Dinosaurs

If you were to ask any homophobic Christian right nutjob, the US Senate is Gaytopia. As the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, it faced almost no vocal opposition on the chamber floor. Sure, most Republicans voted against ENDA -- only ten finally voted to pass the bill -- but only one, Dan Coats, gave a floor speech trying to whip up votes against it. There was virtually no active opposition from Senators.

Needless to say, the religious right isn't taking this very well.

Buzzfeed: The silence from the Senate Republican caucus stunned social conservatives, who have been arguing that the legislation, which provides workplace protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees, will undermine religious liberty.

“I’m mystified and deeply disappointed, because there are profound constitutional issues at stake here,” said the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer. “The entire First Amendment is being put up for auction by this bill and it’s inexcusable that no Republican senators are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution.”

“I believe they have been intimidated into silence by the bullies and bigots of Big Gay,” Fischer added. “They know if they speak out … they will be the target of vitriol, the target of animosity, and very likely, the target of hate."

There's plenty more where that came from, if you really want to wallow through the piece, but suffice it to say that the anti-gay hate industry would very much like to know why Senate Republicans can't be more like their brethren in the House, where ENDA is likely headed to die.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Rebranding Failing Because GOP Doesn't Do Listening

So, Republicans are now in the midst of their big rebranding effort that includes outreach to minority and female voters. Frankly, the woman voter outreach is going pretty lousy, because they're doing it all wrong. You don't take away people's freedoms then ask them to reward you for it at the ballot box. If the GOP wants to win over women, it might be a good idea to stop with all the War on Women stuff.

But there's always the minority outreach. Let's see how that's going...

Washington Post:

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), in an interview with a local radio station released Thursday, referred to Latinos working on a ranch by using the derogatory term “wetbacks.”

“My father had a ranch. We used to hire 50 or 60 wetbacks and — to pick tomatoes,” Young said in the interview with KRBD. “You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.”

The term “wetback” is a slur often used to refer to illegal Mexican immigrants. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a Mexican who enters the United States illegally,” “from the practice of wading or swimming the Rio Grande where it forms the U.S.-Mexico border.”

OK, so that's not doing it right either. Young later released what some are calling an apology, but is really just an explanation. There is no apology. "I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California," he said. "I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."

In other words, "You're wrong to be offended by what I said."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Homophobia Wedge Turns Against the GOP

There's been a wave of Senate Democrats announcing retirement lately, with South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson being the last. That all these announcements are happening at once is not coincidental -- the party has asked people to make their intentions known now, in order to avoid surprises closer to 2014 the elections.

Another wave of announcements has come from the Senate lately -- and it could be the result of similar election strategizing.

Washington Post:

Then there were 10. No, wait. Nine.

In the past month, the rapid rise in public support for same-sex marriage has left Supreme Court justices perplexed and some political veterans, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, struggling to keep up.

But there may be no better measure of this historic change and its disorienting speed than what has happened among the Democrats of the U.S. Senate. They are often representatives of an urban party in rural places. That makes them the zebras of Washington’s little world: perpetually vulnerable, sniffing the wind.

As recently as the last election, 17 of those Democrats did not support same-sex marriage. By this week, however, the number was smaller.

And getting more so by the day.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Grand Old Panderers

Last night, Republican warnings of voting as a block turned out to be bluster. They'd promised a "vigorous defense" of the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but five Republicans wound up voting for repeal. Rising GOP star Paul Ryan actually sat out the vote, perhaps a signal that Republican house leadership had given up on the idea. And shame on the twenty-six Democrats who voted against it. Still, the repeal -- conditional though it is -- passed the house 229-168. Sanity prevailed.

That's not to say that insanity didn't give it one helluva good shot. Republicans still being Republicans, there was plenty of stupidity, hatred, and outright lies on the floor of the house.

You wonder what Gohmert thinks "overt" means. Of course, that's just Louie Gohmert being Louie Gohmert, who Steve Benen once called "one of Congress' most embarrassing buffoons." If it's stupid and crazy and Sarah Palin's not around, Gohmert probably said it.





But what about the plain lie Mike Pence, who serves as Chairman of the House Republican Conference, told about what "Americans want?" He has to know that's not true. I know that Republicans operate in a completely fact-free zone when they need to, but you don't walk into a debate like that without at least taking a glance at some data. He absolutely has to know he's lying. Americans want DADT gone. If Pence doubts that, he can literally choose any poll he likes. They all have the same findings: the public, by an extremely wide margin, doesn't like the policy very much. Pence, in pretending to rise to the defense of the American people, actually rises to oppose us.

I've come to think of that video as a sort of walk of shame. It won't be long before those arguments will be almost universally seen as stupid and embarrassing. And that's because they'll be proven wrong. There's no credible data anywhere backing these arguments up, they're pure supposition -- and that supposition is based in bias. Think about the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage; five states and DC now recognize same sex marriage, but there's still no one demanding to marry their dog. Turns out all the Chicken Little freaking out was as baseless and idiotic and hyperbolic as it seemed.

Are US military personnel the finest fighting force in the world or are they emotionally fragile homophobes who'll turn into a quivering, non-functioning mass in the mere presence of someone they know is gay? That depends on what Republicans need them to be at the moment. And since when do we measure good policy by how bigots would react to it? We know for a fact that there are white supremacists in the military. Should we ban anyone who isn't white, just to keep those morons happy? I think the saner thing would be to reverse Don't Ask, Don't Tell and apply it to homophobes. If you've got a problem serving with gays, you get to shut up about it or you're out. It's not gays who would harm "unit cohesion," it's bigots.

But these are Republicans we're talking about here. Their party is home to bigots and bigots never recognize that they're the problem. So the GOP welcomes them with open arms and encourages them to be bigoted. If it's a wedge-issue, they'll dive right in. Want to hate Muslims or Atheists or gays or the poor or Hispanics? These are your guys.

Welcome home.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

DADT Disrespects All Soldiers -- As Does the GOP

One of the things that always strikes me when talking about Republicans is their tremendous disrespect for Americans' intelligence. The lies are transparent -- at times, idiotic. The spin never quite fits the situation very well. The solutions, such as they are, are always either a call to do something that's already failed or merely a gimmick to get reelected. But what really gets me is when their arguments hinge on that belief in your stupidity; i.e., the Democrats' idea will never work because you're too dumb to understand it/too lazy to do it/too committed to being a jerk. Not only does the GOP believe you're stupid, they really don't think you're a very good person. That is, assuming their arguments are presented honestly.

We see this in the now fast-moving repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Removing DADT won't work, the argument goes, because people in the military are terrible bigots and pigheaded jerks.

Right Wing Watch:

[Sen. James Inhofe and American Family Association's Bryan Fischer] discussed Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, with Fischer praising Inhofe's immediate opposition on the grounds that Kagan is hostile to our military while Inhofe explained that it was vital to try and keep Kagan off the court because she would most likely vote to strike down Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The military is organized into men and women and doesn't need this "third group to deal with," Inhofe said, explaining that, as a military man, he knows that soldiers fight not for nation or flag, but for the guy in the next foxhole... but if the guy in the next foxhole is gay, well, that would dramatically change everything:

Got that? Repealing DADT won't work, because people in the military are all bigoted A-holes who'd rather let a gay die than fight for their country. Granted, there's probably a bit of projection going on here. After all, Sen. Inhofe is a bigoted A-hole, so he's seeing the world through his own distorted lens. But even so, what a poor, poor opinion Inhofe has of our armed forces. I'm often struck by the lack of shame among Republicans and this doesn't do much to dispel that impression.

How rampant is this belief that military personnel are all crazy homophobes, incapable of even tolerance, let alone acceptance? Pretty rampant. In fact, in one chamber of Congress, universal among Republicans. I came across this yesterday in The Hill:

House Republicans are preparing to mount a vigorous defense of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy President Bill Clinton implemented in 1993.

GOP lawmakers in the lower chamber are poised to vote en masse against the defense authorization bill if it includes an amendment to repeal the law barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military.

Over the objections of some Republicans, Clinton issued his "Don't ask, don't tell" directive nearly 17 years ago. Since then, many Republicans have warmed to it -- especially now that liberals want to eradicate it.

Never mind the hypocrisy of defending something that they once argued was the worst thing ever. I can find an example of GOP hypocrisy any day of the week. It's hardly worth commenting on anymore. The issue here is that, by Republican argument, American soldiers are uniquely narrowminded and stupid -- and that we should cater to that narrowmindedness and stupidity.

The pentagon will release a study later this year on the effects of a repeal of DADT and the actual repeal won't go into effect until that report is filed. The findings of the report shouldn't be hard to guess. Other countries have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries, without negative consequences.

But Republicans argue that America is unique. We're different. And, apparently, they believe that difference lies in our intolerance and our idiocy. No other military has had any problems with gays in the military, but the United States will, because we're all a bunch of backwards dicks. In Republican arguments -- and in some Republican minds -- the American soldier is an idiotic homophobe with no chance of ever becoming more tolerant. We have the only soldier in the developed world so backwards and bigoted that the mere presence of a gay in their unit will render them incapable of fighting.

Republicans like to pretend they love the military more than anyone else, but the facts, their actions, and their arguments show that Republicans have a very low opinion of the American soldier. Keep that in mind the next time one of them wraps themselves up in the flag.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The Ultimate Failure of Wedge Issue Politics

The problem with wedge-issue politics is that even when the wedge manages to divide Americans, it doesn't always manage to divide the electorate. This would seem contradictory, but only if you don't think too deeply about it. See, when you create a wedge issue, what you're really trying to do is create a sort of anti-voter -- someone who'll vote against something and for you by default. It's worked with abortion, where the right has convinced people to vote against their own economic interests, because the "pro-business" (read "pro-corporate") candidates they put up are also abortion rights foes. But when the split takes on identity politics -- especially in a negative way -- this strategy may not work out in the wedgers favor.

Take the anti-gay stance of most of the right; there are still gays who vote Republican, but not enough to make the statement "the party has lost the gay vote" untrue. No mainstream Republican anywhere is ever going to be put over the top by a strong showing from the LGBT community.

But they've got the math on their side. Despite the right's rhetoric, gays aren't an ever growing segment of the population. Gay's aren't everywhere, waiting to take over America and destroy families. They're pretty much a fixed percentage. In this wedge issue, Republicans believe they can afford to lose that population, because the single-issue voters they're creating on the other side are so few that they don't really matter. As society changes -- and it will -- we'll hear less and less of Republicans scapegoating gays. But until then, they'll keep fearmongering. People vote against things, not for things. So you're always on the lookout for a group you can portray as the devil. Don't vote for me, vote against them.





But occasionally, some idiot governor and legislature in -- oh, let's say Arizona -- will cook up a wedge that they think works in their state. The stand these fools take may be popular, but nationally, the only single-issue voters it creates are those who'd vote against Republicans. Public Policy Polling explains how Arizona's illegal immigrant crackdown law is playing both nationally and in the state.

There's no doubt that the new Arizona immigration law is popular nationally, but that still doesn't mean the issue's going to work to the GOP's advantage this fall.

When we polled Colorado in early March [US Senate candidates] Michael Bennet and Jane Norton were tied. Last week we found Bennet with a 3 point lead. One of the biggest reasons for that shift? Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.

See, while Arizona's law may be popular nationwide, that doesn't automatically mean that people will vote for any candidate who takes the state's position. In fact, it's not even working so hot in that state. On the other hand, Hispanics are very worried about the law, so they are willing to become single-issue voters. Like the right's anti-gay stance, the issue is probably creating more anti-Republican single-issue voters than pro-. But unlike gays, the Hispanic population is large and growing. In other words, in looking for a brand new devil for people to vote against, the GOP picked a fight with the wrong bunch.

"This has always been Democrats' belief about immigration politics," writes Ben Smith for Politico, "That among the voters for whom this is a single, motivating issue, whites may get more attention, but Hispanics are more numerous." This seems to have been the case.

But the better lesson here is that being right -- being moral, ethical, tolerant, and wise -- pays off in the long run. Take a look at the olympic-sized pool of hot water Kentucky candidate Rand Paul finds himself in right now. Turns out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is extremely popular, to the point of being nearly universally supported. When it comes to issues of equality, the good guys always seem to win in the end. If you doubt that, wait for the huge public outcry about gays in the military. It could start any minute now -- but you probably shouldn't hold your breath.

What we see when we look at American history is a process of acceptance. A bunch of people say, "Hey, let's all hate those guys!" a lot of people try it out for a while, see it isn't helping any, and move on. It's not the best process or the way I'd go about it, but it is what it is. And every single time, the people who say, "You know, we probably shouldn't hate the Irish-blacks-gays-Jews-women-Catholics-Hispanics-Chinese-etc.," win out in the end. Every time. My advice would be to skip the stupid step and just get right to the acceptance, but this is the real world and it's got a lot of fearful people. And fearful people vote Republican. So long as that's the case, the GOP is going to be on the prowl for people to be afraid of and the process toward acceptance will take a detour through stupid.

Democrats should always be the ones getting in on the ground floor with tolerance. It's always the best bet in the end and sometimes -- like now, with the GOP trying to whip up anti-Hispanic panic -- the rewards are almost immediate.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

I Guess Because Fear is Fun

Let the insanity begin. We now officially have a Supreme Court nominee. Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama's choice to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens. An unnamed Republican aide previews part of the GOP game plane from here; "A third of the Senate said she was unqualified for the [solicitor general] post," the aide told Politico. "It will be hard to ask them to turn around and say she now qualified, for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And we'll be busy in the coming months looking over her whole year of courtroom experience."

See, Kagan -- like former Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- has never served as a judge. This explains the snide "whole year of courtroom experience" remark. A former Dean of Harvard Law School, there can be no doubt that understands the law well enough. And if a third of the senate thought she wasn't qualified to be solicitor general, two-thirds thought she was. Hell, if two-thirds of Americans voted for a presidential candidate, it'd be a historic landslide. Suddenly, being confirmed by a filibuster-proof majority is a bad thing. Apparently, unless someone was confirmed unanimously for another post, there's no way they're being confirmed for the Supreme Court.

Of course, this is just the right seeing the opportunity to pry open the wallets of their gullible and panicky base. It's all a big show, a pretend outrage, a phony fear campaign by a party that has no plan to offer any real opposition to Kagan's confirmation. "Barring extraordinary circumstances," reports the Associated Press, "Solicitor General Elena Kagan should have a relatively smooth confirmation to the Supreme Court if nominated by President Barack Obama."





"But there could still be a substantial culture war dust-up over her actions at Harvard to exclude military recruiters because of the ban on gays in the armed services," Politico reports. "Conservatives have indicated that one line of argument against Kagan is that her tireless efforts against the military recruiters shows Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge – and such an argument could also nick Obama, who has had to defend his toughness on national defense matters from attacks by the GOP."

Now there's a bonanza; siding with those perverted gays against the military in a time of war. If I wanted to, I could write a whole "hates America" screed right now and probably not be too far off the "hates America" screeds we'll see from the right. Maybe she's even a closet lesbian -- as an Obama nominee, we can be sure she's a closet commie. Oops, my bad, the "closet lesbian" rumor is already spreading.

For the vast homophobic wing of the Republican Party, to be gay is to be literally insane. Homosexual behavior is a mental disorder than can be cured. Of course, that "cure" has an awful track record, sometimes with hilarious consequences. But more often, the consequences are tragic. 90% of so-called "ex-gays" -- people who've undergone this "cure" -- reported "depression to the point of attempted suicide or strained relationships with family and parents," according to a 2002 study.

But complete and utter failure has never been an impediment to belief among the right before and it's not going to start being one now. The right believes whatever it is they want to believe and the facts be damned. So Elena Kagan will be a horrible anti-American lesbian pervert -- which means she's insane. I guess because that's the most fun to be terrified of. I'll admit, I don't get this whole herd mentality that goes with falling for fearmongering. I assume it's fun, but I don't know. There has to be some sort of emotional reward associated with it, but I don't understand what that is. Being constantly terrified of things that never actually materialize would just be tiring otherwise. I don't understand how you could answer the call to panic again and again and again, only to find out every time that the Boogieman isn't really under the bed. Unless it's fun, it makes no sense.

Whatever the fear consumers' emotional itch is, Republicans are sure to give them reason to scratch it. At least their motivation here is easy to understand. If you give the base something to wet their pants over, they throw money at you. Of course, it won't be the Senators themselves who do all this hysteria whipping, it'll be their surrogates in the media -- Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, etc. GOP Senators will just go to great lengths to avoid agreeing or disagreeing with these surrogates. As always, the rightwing media will be the freelance, de facto press office for the GOP.

If Republicans won't offer anything but token opposition to Kagan, they'll certainly be rewarded by the phony opposition in their media. It worked that way during the Sotomayor confirmation and there's no reason to think the same thing won't play out now. Things are going to get very stupid, yes. But unless Kagan has a bona fide crime in her background, you wouldn't go broke betting her nomination will be confirmed.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Religious Right Discovers New Way to Freak Out Over the Census

If you look at the Baptist Press's masthead banner, you find out that they deliver "News with a Christian Perspective." Run by the ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Convention, BP news stories -- like most stories reported by conservative outlets -- can best be summed up as "Freak out! Do it now!" I guess some religions focus on spiritual enlightenment and personal growth, while others focus on keeping you in a perpetual panic. Being constantly terrified of things that aren't really there doesn't seem like a very good way to spend your life, but that's just me.

And, of course, one of the things the right's been telling people to be constantly terrified of is the US census. A constitutionally required headcount, the census has been portrayed as some evil plot to round people up and put them into prison camps. Remember, if you're a conservative, it's your job to panic at the drop of a hat. It's what being a real American is all about. Courage is for communists, patriots panic.

Now BP has come up with a new reason to fear the census -- it's going to help the gays take over.

The Census Bureau is actively encouraging homosexual couples to declare themselves as "married" on census forms even if they do not have a marriage license, and critics say the move not only violates federal law but also encourages lying and will result in an inflated number.

It has been known for months that the Census Bureau was going to, for the first time, count same-sex couples in the 2010 Census, but only in recent days has the Census Bureau begun encouraging such participation through TV commercials airing on the homosexual-themed Logo channel, as well as through social media videos.

Only five states and the District of Columbia recognize "gay marriage." Yet homosexual couples in the other 45 states -- even those states that have passed constitutional amendments explicitly defining marriage in the traditional sense -- are encouraged by the Census Bureau to identify as being "married" on the census if that's how they view their relationship.

"Census data are based on how individuals self identify and how couples think of themselves," BP quotes a census factsheet [PDF]. "Same-sex couples who are married, or consider themselves to be spouses, can identify one other adult as a 'husband or wife.'"

Of course, this is taking everything out of context and no one's saying anything about not having a license. We know that several states and the District of Columbia now recognize and allow same sex marriage. And a lot of people who got married now live in a state that doesn't recognize that marriage. The lack of recognition by your state government does not negate the fact that you went someplace and were legally married. You consider that other person your spouse, since you went out of the way to have them declared your spouse.

Here's one of those "social media videos":

It's actually pretty clear. And so is the factsheet. "Census data are based on how individuals self identify," it goes on. "This includes same-sex couples who live somewhere their relationship is not recognized." But of course, the truth doesn't serve their conservative purposes, so the truth is out the window. I guess "a Christian Perspective" is synonymous for "crap that ain't true." You learn something new every day.

Part of the problem here is that the Defense of Marriage Act -- or DOMA -- bars the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage. But the interpretation that applies this to the census is taking the letter of the law to an absurd extreme. How does it help anyone not to know how many same sex marriages there are in the United States? What possible purpose would that ignorance serve?

For their part, the religious right has no answer to that; either because this is a non-issue they can use to freak homophobic ultra-conservative Baptists out over, because they'd rather be able to pretend that the LGBT community doesn't exist, or a combination of the two. In any case, they've got their outrage on.

"What kind of government actively lobbies citizens to lie on their forms?" BP reports Family Research Council President Tony Perkins as asking. "... Homosexuals should fill out the census form and be counted, the same as any other Americans. But only Congress -- not homosexual activists, not the Census Bureau, and not President Obama and his appointees acting unilaterally -- can change federal law."

Do what now? "Lie on their forms?" These people applied for a marriage license, went somewhere to get married, probably even had a wedding reception. I don't think it'd be unreasonable for them to tell people they're married. It's certainly not a lie.

The religious right's portrayal of it, however, is.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Keep DADT -- But Apply it to Homophobes

Earlier this week, I wrote that about 75% of the American public oppose the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendereds, and transsexuals. And why not? The LGBT community has gone pretty much mainstream. In retrospect, the strategy of gays coming out of the closet worked. Normal people who were secretly gay became openly gay -- but still normal. I'd think that coming out would take a tremendous amount of personal courage, so I can only imagine how satisfying it must be to see that strategy paying off.

But what about the military; what do people serving or who have served think of repealing DADT? The pentagon is preparing to study the issue with a poll of their own, but we don't have to wait. A poll [PDF] commissioned by the Vet Voice Foundation asked that question and the answer is, frankly, complicated.

Polling exclusively Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, VVF put the question to former and current military personnel. Only 34% favor allowing gays to serve openly. Only 36% are opposed. 30% are on the fence. But the numbers are different when asked how they feel personally about gays; 73% said they're personally comfortable with gays and lesbians and 60% believe sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's ability to serve.





So why the disparity? If most are OK with gays and most think sexual orientation isn't a factor in being able to serve, why do so many oppose repealing DADT? Unfortunately, the poll doesn't answer this question. I think it's pretty clear that they're concerned -- incorrectly, it turns out -- about how their comrades would react to gays serving openly. That's just a guess, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

Part of the problem here is that, while 58% believe they've served alongside gays, there's no way for most of them to know. It's literally a crime to say it out loud. So the gains made by gays in the civilian world by coming out can't be reflected in the military. You can't come out of the closet -- it's illegal. Add to this that the respondent pool is 45% Republican, 25% Independent, and 20% Democrat, and you can imagine that many of these people see their doubts reinforced by their media of choice. If you watch FOX News, you start to think that's reality. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you start to think that's reality. When right wing blowhards start talking BS about gays "destroying unit cohesion," you think they're right -- even though it's not true for you personally. All those other people are homophobes and, despite how you feel, you believe that keeping DADT would just be avoiding a whole lot of trouble. In other words, if you live in right wing world, you may not be closed-minded, but you believe everyone else is.

Repealing DADT would remove this. The only way this perception can perpetuate itself is if being gay is a secret. You may suspect someone's gay, you may even know it, but -- assuming, as the poll shows, you have no problem with it -- you can't find out how other people feel about it. You can't out them. They can't out themselves. So the distorted perception that everyone else hates the gays can be sustained. If gays and lesbians served openly, then actual reality would take hold.

And what about that 30% who say they're uncomfortable in the presence of gays? Screw 'em. This is, after all, the military. No one joined up to be comfortable. When you're in the service, you obey. If you have a problem with gays and lesbians, then shut up about it. And that's an order.

And people who believe the "unit cohesion" argument have it bass-ackward; gays aren't the problem here, the bigoted minority is the problem. You don't blame women for sexism, you don't blame Jews for antisemitism, and you don't blame minorities for racism. So why are we blaming gays for homophobia? Even if homophobia destroyed unit cohesion, it wouldn't be gays dissolving that cohesion -- it'd be the homophobes. Impose DADT on them -- say one word against anyone in the LGBT community and you're out of this man's army.

Now stop flaunting your homophobic lifestyle choice, mister.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Reinventing the Wheel with Healthcare Reform and DADT

Healthcare reform is unpopular. At least, that's what Republicans have been saying. It's the worst thing ever and Americans know it. To listen to the GOP, we're all in agreement here -- everyone hates this thing. But the truth is that Pollster.com's average of polls finds that Americans are split on the issue, 48% anti- to 44% pro-. Not only isn't there a consensus on reform, but there isn't even a majority opinion. Given the Republican campaign of anti-reform propaganda and disinformation, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise -- we have no idea what to think. Further, White House pollster Joel Benenson has pointed out that as much as a third of the antis are supportive of reform, but believe this bill doesn't go far enough. Once the bill is law, he argues, a lot of this contingent will come around to defend it, hoping to use it as a foothold for further reform -- this is a category I already fall into. This shift would likely put the pros in the majority.

No, if you want to find an unpopular program, you'd have to look elsewhere. Like, say, the Republican defended policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Polling shows that 75% of Americans oppose that policy. And why not? It's an absurdity created by compromise. Then-President Bill Clinton wanted to remove the ban on gays and lesbians in the military entirely -- which he could do as Commander and Chief. But the fear was that Congress would legislate the issue and write the ban into law with a veto-proof majority. So a deal was cut, a compromise was made, and a weaker law was passed. DADT was basically something along the lines of "we'll let gays in the military, but we'll pretend they aren't gay. As long as they don't break the illusion, gays are now allowed to serve."

And this Frankenstein monster of a compromise has now brought us this:

Associated Press:

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to "out" service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.

"I played by 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Newsome told The Associated Press by telephone.

It looks like the police outed her to punish her for not cooperating with an investigation. They found the document while investigating a theft charge against her spouse. Never mind that no one is required to help police with an investigation and, as the suspect's spouse, Newsome can even refuse to testify in court. For their part. Rapid City police say they had to inform the Air Force.

"It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job," said Police Chief Steve Allender, "but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it. It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information." Legal experts disagree.

"This is not a federal crime," writes Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. "Since when are officers compelled to report matters of potential internal discipline to an employer? If the officers hoped for greater cooperation from the gay community, this is hardly the way to secure it."

And, in the end, no one asked and Newsome certainly didn't tell, but she's out anyway. Why? Because of a flawed compromise with crazy people, that's why. This is America and we can never just go ahead and do something. Other nations have lifted similar bans without any problem, but the US has to reinvent the wheel every time we want to change something, because some people think this country is a different planet. We can't look at other countries, see what policies or programs work best, and adopt them. No, Americans are entirely different from every other population on Earth. We can't do things the way everyone else does. We have to build everything from the ground up and, as a result, everything's a hodgepodge of good and bad ideas -- with the good ideas compromised into bad ideas.

I always say that a compromise is an arrangement in which all parties agree to be equally unhappy. I also always say that meeting someone crazy halfway is halfway crazy. And DADT backs both arguments up -- almost no one likes it, it's absurd, and it doesn't work. Sergeant Jene Newsome can get married in Iowa, but she can't even exist in the military.

And this is the problem facing healthcare reform as well. It's compromised into a monstrosity. Good ideas are out, bad ideas are in, because the United States can't just look at other countries, see what works, and do that. No, we've got to come up with something totally different from every other country and ignore what's been tested and proven, because that's just what Americans do.

The good news here is that DADT is on its way out and full acceptance -- what we should've done in the first place -- is coming. It's another thing Americans do. We look at the bad compromise, say, "Well, that didn't work either," then go ahead with something saner. Our uniquely American solutions have to fail before we go ahead and do what other nations have done.

That should give that percentage White House pollster Joel Benenson talked about cause for optimism. If this compromise is as bad as they -- and I -- think it is, it won't last. And we won't go back, either. That's another thing we don't do. What we'll do is change it again.

It's a pity that people like Newsome have to get screwed in the meantime.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Good Enough for War

In 2002, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network issued a report finding that discharges under the military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" were "the fewest discharges since 1996." The numbers were down 1,273 since the year before. Progress? Hardly.

The Iraq war was raging and the armed forces needed every person they could get. "When they need lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans most, military leaders keep us close at hand," said SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn. "The time has come to do away with the Pentagon’s charade and make sure no one loses his or her career at the hands of anti-gay discrimination." So gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are good enough for war -- just not fit to serve in peacetime. Or even relative peacetime.

The plain idiocy of DADT aside, the policy is theoretically one of enforced ignorance. "Don't ask, don't tell" could just as easily be expressed as "don't know, don't wanna know." And this gives DADT supporters a rhetorical advantage; they can claim that ending the policy would be allowing gays and lesbians into the military, when the truth is the the policy is designed to allow them into the military. And the advantage comes in the fact that no one in the military is in a position to contradict them. Gays can't come out and say that they're serving without risking their careers and supportive comrades can't come forward in their defense for the same reason. As a result, bigots can pretend there are no gays in the military -- or, at least, very few -- and cast repealing DADT as a drastic change.





Case in point; rightwing crazy Oliver North. Speaking to the equally insane Sean Hannity, North argued that allowing gays into the military would pretty much destroy the universe.

"[It's a] stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world," North fumed. "Barack Obama now intends to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental... In other words, this isn’t about rights. This isn’t about fairness. It’s all about national security. And apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it... Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association] members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?"

OK, so that's a big pile of stupid, but that's what you get from Hannity's show. No one tunes in for reasoned discussion, they tune in for fearmongering and demagoguery. But you see what he did there? There are no gays in the serving now. Obama wants to try a "radical social experiment" that'll surely kill us all.

Less rabid and incoherent was Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty this weekend on Meet the Press. He followed Gen. David Patreus, who explained that he supported the efforts to repeal the policy.

"I support 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Pawlenty said. "And, you know anecdotally -- I saw the general's comments in response to that. Anecdotally, I know there's still a great number, a great portion of the military community that is concerned about that. They believe 'don't ask, don't tell' worked. If it's not broke, don't fix it -- or if it's not, it's not in need of fixing, you don't need to repair it. So I'd leave it alone."

But isn't it broken? If the military ignores the presence of gays and lesbians during wartime, doesn't that prove that the ban serves no constructive purpose? Worse, it risks losing personnel at the exact moment they're most needed.

Since the institution of DADT, 60-some Arabic language translators have been dismissed from the armed services. Isn't that risking national security? And aren't arguments that repealing DADT would be harmful entirely theoretical?

They cite no studies, bring no facts to the table; all they bring is wild speculation, baseless fearmongering, and hatred. That's not the best argument.

Meanwhile, opponents of the policy are able to cite polling that shows that an overwhelming majority -- in the latest poll I could find, a 2-1 majority -- supports repealing DADT. Even rightwing loon Dick Cheney supports ending the ban.

And a new study finds that there would be no risk at all in ending the policy. The study, by the Palm Center, a research group at the University of California, Santa Barbara, looked at other nations that have changed the military policy toward gays and found no effect on morale and recruitment, as well as no evidence of "increased harassment."

So one argument exists in a fact-free atmosphere of baseless speculation and attempts at reading the minds of servicemembers, while the other is backed up by facts collected from all over the world, the existence of gays and lesbians in the military now, and the opinions of an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Doesn't seem like much of a contest to me.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter